I do realize that it could easily lead to angry riots if they go ahead and just nullify 90% of grind players did. However, for the context, I do have quite a fleet of fully engineered G5 monsters, that I crushed my soul to engineer, but for the positive changes, or at least attempts to balance it out (we do have test branches afaik) I'd personally trade it all in a heartbeat. Can't speak for the rest of the playerbase, of course...
I agree with what you've said there, and I'd be willing to take the hurt for the good of the game, sure there would ships I'd never fly again like bye bye python and bye bye cutter, but for the health of the game, I'd take that hit, but I'm sure we are in an extremely small minority in thinking that way.
1. Just get rid of Prismatics. Because to state the obvious all these mega shield tanks use Prismatics. Stacking boosters on Bi-Weave or regular shield builds is OK.
2. What else are you going to put in utility slots? Let's face it Boosters are the only really useful item. So give us some better utilities OR make missiles better so it's worth packing PD etc. etc.
3. Reduce the effect of Chaff on gimbaled weapons*. I know this contradicts my above statement but if you make Gimbaled wep's more effective then you allow shields to be taken down quicker.
* This could be done through engineering. I'm surprised it isn't already really.
Prismatics aren't the problem, you can still stack silly shields with multiple heavily engineered boosters and A grade or BiWeaves, the problem is the overpowered effect engineering has on boosters, which becomes manifest when multiple boosters are thus stacked. But you cannot just nerf stacked boosters, as those were working as intended, it needs to capture engineered boosters, then there is a feathery edge of where do you stop the capture zone for the nerf.
Engineering is the cancer of this game. Not only does it infest PvP - the powercreep seeped into PvE as well and made engineered the new standard. Additional roadblock to just play the very basic game - grind to play or shoot your peashooters at buff enemies.
See my comments above, but I agree it was better before engineering.
I don't have any issues of the kind complained about here - I just play the game and build how I like, but object because others want to remove my options just because they dislike it.
I have zero interest in PvP, being particularly happy to leave that to those whose skill is considerably higher than mine - I quite admire the skill shown in many videos and can understand the attraction of PvP (so have no axe to grind over the playstyle) - but really dislike the 'asks' for X or Y to be removed / muted because it makes PvP unfun.
Even I use PA's with TC in PvE - they are impressive!
I'm with rat on this one, I have next to no interest in PvP, but I hold no grudge against those who regard it as the only reason to play the game, I do however object to them making requests/demands that X be nerfed to oblivion or Y be yanked because when minmaxxed it makes PvP unfun. It's oftentimes not necessarily X or Y that makes the game un fun, its the people stacking and minmaxing it that has that effect. Put it another way, "guns don't kill people, rappers do" blueprints don't kill gameplay, minmaxin does.
There have been multiple meta since the game released and with every nerf another meta pops up.
That just means the nerfs are heavy-handed.If they weren't your new and old META would be similarly effective.
You might reasonably argue that FDEV is incapable of balancing a game from that evidence, but not that it cannot be done.
That's because the game has always been badly balanced and the devs are noobs with MP games.
I'd be happy if they achieved a position where META stood for Many Effective Tools Available, but I agree, their nerfs are neolithic, I specifically said earlier in this thread that "Frontier is known for their nerf-sledge-hammer, not their nerf-laser-guided-scalpel". I agree with y'all, they tend to take one good thing and nerf it out of existance rather than a slight downwards tweak to bring it into line with alternatives.
You start with the wrong assumptions though, there is no such thing as a PvP player. Meaning that there is no player that only engages in PvP and does no PvE and thus does not care about PvE balance. There are people who only do PvE and that's fine.
There is a perception, and I don't know how much truth is in this perception, that a large segment of the PvP community nowadays only really PvE to access the PvP equipment that is often gated behind it like engineering needing mats, and have no interest in "playing the galaxy".
Some act like kids when someone tries to take their toys away. Someone pointed out a problem and proposed a solution (shield boosters and a heavy handed nerf respectively). Admittedly, a bad solution which would just create other problems. Fine, the community started brainstorming and tried to propose reasonable solutions.
I don't know if you put me in that pidgeon hole or not, but, despite how some of my comments in this thread may appear, personally I'm all for working out something that makes PvP more engaging. Sadly, as Ratcatcher points out, alot of the PvP focussed "improvements" will compromise PvE gameplay, or at the very least restrict the viable options available to PvE loadouts.
I used to PvP for Powerplay reasons before engineers, and it was fun, now, after engineering's became derigeur, its a slogfest, and I really CBA with it, so nowadays I mess with BGS, hence my comments being aimed at preserving PvE builds viability.
But a number of individuals decided to just go 'whee whee don't touch my toys, I don't care about PvP so NO'. That's just not the proper way to look at this. Whether anyone likes it or not, ED wants to balance solo, PG, open, PvP and PvE all at once. It's a tricky process, but don't be shortsighted enough to think that because you don't partake in a given activity it can be ignored.
The whole thing is a mess, and it would take more than a simple nerf this and or buff that, It's going to require an entire holistic look at everything engineering combat related, or at the very least it must look at both offensive and defensive blueprints simultaneously.
